Assertion of an "absolute now" from "What is 'spacetime' really"

[Michael Mooney]

notice the words you used michael

 

1. transcends

2. local frame of reference

3. relative velocity

 

transcends imply go HIGHER (so go higher what ?)

local frames imply non-local Frames or simply somewhere else than here ( so where else is that?)

to get rid of the nuisances of relative velocity, do away the motion all together. what branch of physics have done that already? and how did they do that? i assure you, the geometry is not in 3d space

 

"Notice my words? As their author I noticed them first. Wanna know what I mean? Ask.

"Transcends," in my lexicon means to go beyond. Beyond local frames of reference (plural) is the cosmic frame of reference (singular.) I am not saying "I am God." I have said that my life as a mystic "sees" from transcendental perspective, including at times cosmic perspective. But that invariably gets me in trouble in a sceince forum. So, tho it's true, I frame it in "thought experiment" language, so Einstein and his admirers here will approve.

 

So "somewhere else than here" refers to "everywhere"... even the unknown beyond our cosmic event horizon.

 

Your "to get rid of the nuisances of relative velocity, do away the motion all together"... comment is a continuation of your previous and constant, very predictable misunderstanding of the "universal now." The motion of everything everywhere, on all scales is a given.

 

Time is the "duration aspect of all this motion... whatever "event" "the observer" has designated.

Now... Is .... not interested in the duration observation... or the location specification.

 

Do you understand what I have just said in this post? If not ask specific questions or present specific arguments to the contrary... please.

Michael

[modest]

While I was composing my e-mail, I went to his site to get some facts about his quote and noticed that the link has already been changed to the archive. Either he reads this forum or someone here (I assume that would be Modest) already e-mailed him. If it was Modest, I send hearty thanks. (Modest, I am assuming you will read this.)

 

Wasn't me... I also noticed it was updated though... just assumed it was you.

 

The possibility being omitted here is the possibility that the girl on the train would say to herself, “oh, I am moving towards that lighting bolt which struck the front of the train so I am naturally going to see it first even if they were simultaneous”...

 

The central issue of relativity is that calculations in one inertial frame give exactly the same answers as those in another inertial frame if the proper physics is done: i.e., there exists no reason for her to use a frame at rest with the train; she could just as well use exactly the same reference frame used by the guy at the side of the track. To imply that she cannot do so is simply misdirection of attention.

 

Of course she can do that, but the issue (it seems to me) is that she doesn't have to do that. If her frame is a valid choice with a valid notion of simultaneity—then the order of events in his frame cannot be considered unique. So long has her choice to use her own frame is valid then the existence of a privileged frame shouldn't amount to absolute or universal simultaneity (although it would certainly be privileged).

 

I also don't like the idea of having to prove that no preferred frame exists or that the special principle of relativity is true. In either case it amounts to proving a negative or proving there are no counterexamples—which can't be done.

 

~modest

[watcher]

That is exactly what the Lorentz-Fitzgerald contraction is all about.

 

the distortion is real. but since both frame of reference are right. the girl can also lay claim that it was the man outside the train who had a distorted point of view.

 

The central issue of relativity is that calculations in one inertial frame give exactly the same answers as those in another inertial frame if the proper physics is done

 

yup. as stated above, you can't dismiss the girl' in motion perspective in favor of the man at rest perspective.

 

as a matter of fact, the weakness of relativity is to treat everyframe of reference at rest when in actuality nothing is at rest in the universe.

 

Now!... is the present. (Period.) There Is no spacial location applicable to the present. The present is the present everywhere

 

michael if you mean to say that things are not in time, then i agree. and saying it like this is much easier to explain .

 

Do you understand what I have just said in this post? If not ask specific questions or present specific arguments to the contrary... please.

 

yes i do. but only within the context that universe as a whole is multidimentional. including consciousness.

[arkain101]

I finally get what Michael Mooney is saying!!!!!!

 

And at this point I agree with him entirely when considering his postulates.

 

I am in the process of developing a response that I think will make this very clear.

 

(hype hype) lol

[lawcat]

I finally get what Michael Mooney is saying!!!!!!

 

And at this point I agree with him entirely when considering his postulates.

I am in the process of developing a response that I think will make this very clear.

 

(hype hype) lol

 

I am curious to see what that explanation is. It is undoubted that time occurs everywhere. However, it is also undoubted that: What that time is, depends on the frame. (i.e. people on Andromeda will say that something occured 2 million years ago, and we will say it occured 3 million years ago.)

[Doctordick]

Wasn't me... I also noticed it was updated though... just assumed it was you.

Maybe he is following this forum??? :confused: Or maybe someone complained about the link being missing and he found the archive himself. I have no idea how the change came about but it's nice that it did.

I also don't like the idea of having to prove that no preferred frame exists or that the special principle of relativity is true. In either case it amounts to proving a negative or proving there are no counterexamples—which can't be done.

Don't be so sure of yourself here. Essentially you are presuming that no counterexamples exist or will ever exist. That idea could well be in error. My analysis is based on a rather different presumption. I am presuming that, if they are ignoring any counterexamples, then their expectations cannot include a preferred frame. That can be proved and does not require one to assume no counter examples will ever be found; it is actually a much firmer ground than yours.

 

In addition, if you think that the entirety of physics is totally independent of your frame of reference, how do you explain the fact that the earth is not at rest with respect to the background microwave radiation. Isn't it just a refusal to admit that such a special case exists? Do you not have to ignore that physical phenomena; i.e., submit to my presentation of the issue? Arn't you just trying to keep people from looking at that phenomen as suggesting a preferred frame?

 

Missdirection of attention is a very powerful force in magic and can hide the truth from people for years, even when they know they are being fooled. I have another set of issues that arise when we get into GR. How about we don't worry about this difference in our opinions until then. It is, after all, merely an opinion.

 

Have fun -- Dick

[arkain101]

(excuse any wrong assumptions Michael. I am only suggesting my understanding of Mooney's posts, and by no means am I speaking for him)

 

Special relativity is formulated so as to not assume that any particular frame of reference is special; rather, in S. relativity, any reference frame moving with uniform motion will observe the same laws of physics. This includes the passage of time, ie 1 second is always 1 second for an observer and the watch on his static wrist.

 

However, if we think about this carefully, it is making a claim that there is something special in any inertial frame of reference. What is this something? It is exactly what believe Michael Mooney is bringing to the forefront.

 

We must establish that I the writer and you the read are considering the same definition of a frame of reference, more specifically, an inertial frame of reference. So, here is a short definition of what I am defining an inertial frame of reference:

 

"In physics, an inertial frame of reference is a reference frame, tied to the state of motion of an observer, with the property that each physical law portrays itself in the same form in every inertial frame.[1][2] The contrasting case is the set of non-inertial frames, in which the laws of physics change from frame to frame, and the usual forces governing laws of physics must be supplemented by fictitious forces." -wiki

 

Going back to the special something in any inertial frame. This postulate of special relativity that "physical law portrays itself in the same form in every inertial frame" has some consequence that influences the formation of the opinion of a person, on the nature of reality and time. A common formation of opinion I believe is that the theory of SR makes the claim that, there is only one places time passes the same, and that is within the inertial frame of reference tied to an observer, which of course is only one place. The influence of opinion on the nature of reality is when this claim allows for a person to consider that an inertial frame of reference is the only place for the proper passage of time (this is that special something). Such that, beyond an inertial frame of reference into "an observed frame of reference," the usual forces governing laws of physics, and the usual physics for that matter are different, and dynamic in proportion to certain variables.

 

Michael Mooney, brings forward the point that you can visualize reality without the demand of obeying the conception of the usual physics in an inertial frame of reference. That is, in other words, although the passage of time (along with laws of physics) can differentiate amongst specific frames of reference contained in a Lorentz transformation system, it does not require one to exclude the notion that, the events that are occurring in different frames of reference can occur at precisely the same moment.

 

In order to make this conception without producing logistical conflict, the person must deny the claim of SR that, usual time (non-dynamic) exists in any specific location and replace this with the conception that a usual time exists in all locations, which I believe Michael repeatedly refers to as cosmic perspective, or cosmic time. This replacement of usual time (cosmic) excludes the assumption that a physics (theoretical view) approach on reality demands a non-dynamic set of laws and passage of time.

 

With this being accurate to Michael efforts, then, Michael asks us:

 

Why must I constrain my perspective of reality by the boundaries of my own observation frame? (With the supportive claim that, there exists a usual time[/u in all locations, even if we can't wrap a clock around the entirety of it all)

 

And

 

What, if anything, could I benefit by removing these forms of boundaries if you will?

[arkain101]

This begs a further question.

 

If we agree that two different frames of reference in the universe can have different laws of physics governing their behavior(inertial frame of reference, and an observed fast moving object), then:

 

Which laws of physics are more prominent in the governing of the universe overall?

 

 

Let me use an example that I think brings this query to the ultimate situation. A black hole has laws of physics that are not the same as the laws of physics on mars.

 

We can surely agree they both exist in space. So the same question is asked:

 

Can both forms of physics exist together under a mother theory? That is, can two theories exist on the nature of space and time?

[Boerseun]

See above conversation with Pyrotex on "time." I'm tired of repeating. The "elevated position" from which to observe any 3-D object/event is simply beyond that object... still in 3-D space. This fourth spacial dimension is all in your (and many others') mind(s)... as I see it.

Although it might not be immediately apparent, viewing a 3D object doesn't merely require you to exist along with it in 3D space, just "beyond" that object. You cannot view a 3D object without time being present. Sure - you can rotate an object to see the back end, to experience the depth of it, but how do you propose to rotate anything without time being present? I put it to you that if you observe a 3D object in a pure 3D universe with no time being present, then everything in that universe will look two-dimensional to you.

 

We are observing the three dimensions we are accustomed to from an elevated position, from the perspective of the marriage of space with time. Much like you can only appreciate a one dimensional line from a more-dimensional vantage point.

This is nothing more that the obvious: that each observer has a perspective unique to the position of the observer. Yup!

The fact that it's obvious, doesn't negate the implications thereof. One of them being that there can be no such thing as a universal "now". I will grant you that at the same "moment" that Julius Ceasar was assassinated, the light we see today from a star 2,000 light years left the surface of it. But a spaceship leaving that same starship towards us at relativistic speed have only experience three minutes of time passing since. Where, in that three minutes, are the missing two thousand years of "universal nows" that we've shared with them since Julius's demise?

Yet.... here it goes again... for the universe as a whole, the present is the present, always, everywhere. (Now is now, here, there, and everywhere.)

I'm afraid that you're trying to reduce the universe to the comfortable image you have of three-dimensional (plus time) space around you. The universe, however, is an unfolding hypersphere with each and every point contained in it being slap-bang in the exact centre of it. That's the point I was trying to make earlier with your coordinates in space having an equally valid claim as mine to being the exact centre of the universe. And we would both be right. Now with that being the case, with space being bent to hell and gone outside the scope of the comfortable three dimensions I see around my computer screen, I think it would be very odd indeed if the time component bowed universally to the common perception us mortals have of the "here" and "now", seeing as time is what makes us see space for what it is.

[arkain101]

I am curious to see what that explanation is. It is undoubted that time occurs everywhere. However, it is also undoubted that: What that time is, depends on the frame. (i.e. people on Andromeda will say that something occured 2 million years ago, and we will say it occured 3 million years ago.)

 

Right. What I agree with is that his questions are viable, and that his statements are acceptable, but from what I understand it all in general I can not say much for its scientific accuracy.

[maddog]

I have not "conceded" but fully embraced the excellence of relativity for dealing with "local perspectives" throughout the "spacetime" thread.

Don't flatter yourself as having caught me in the act of contradicting myself.

Catching you in a contradiction was not even my intent. I was attempting to pin you to

what you had said. That which you are squirming out of. You and Bill Clinton should make

good "bedfellows". ;)

Philosophically speaking, I disagree with the prevailing philosophy here, that "Everything is relative." I agree, as above, that *local perspectives* are relative to each other and that "signal delay" and constant lightspeed for information propagation applies.

This sound contradictory, though I think not. This I do think is the crux though of the

length of the 'original' thread.

So, in the format of "for observer A.... and for observer B"... the relativistic perspective, I have introduced the paradigm that I see as beyond relativity, as repeated several times above in the form of "for the universe as a whole"... Now Is Omni-Present!

Does this mean You are "Omni-Present to the whole universe ??? If you are not

cognizant of this fact, what difference does it make :confused:, how can you prove this fact ;), and

who cares ??? :naughty: :naughty: :naughty:

This can be discussed philosophically without dragging gnosis into the discussion, tho you well know my background as a mystic. I am not, in fact, claiming gnosis as proof of the "Absolute Universal Now." It is simply obvious to me that Now is now everywhere and not a thing with various locations.... etc.

If you are not, then what "proof" do you provide. None so far as I have seen in this and

the original thread.

This should clarify my perspective on the rest of your post comparing the present right now in my kitchen with what's happening right now...same now on Tau Ceti 18 LY away.

It will, of course require 18 years for any communication from Tau Ceti's NOW to reach me in my kitchen... if I have a very good antenna, well focused, plenty of patience, and, of course that there is intelligent life around Tau Ceti.

I was assuming intelligence near that star for the moment. The idea being the distance

from here to there exceeds you ability to receive a signal. Thus you can NOT be aware

here ("your kitchen") and Tau Ceti. Impossible. So you could not have any knowledge

about what is going on there.

You have not been "getting" what I've been saying about "now everywhere" vs information propagation, limited as it is of course to lightspeed. And, frankly, I'm tired of hammering on it for those of you who can not or will not understand the difference.

Well then, if you tired to continue. Please refrain, and I will do so also.

 

maddog

[maddog]

I was replying to maddog's issue with Now here and Now at Tau Ceti. Now is simply the present both here and there... not addressing when i can "see" what *is happening* there... which will be... ok...12 years later, after the simultaneous Now happening in both places at once.

Yep, my bad. I checked and Tau Ceti is 11.8 LY away. Oops! :naughty:

Again, the absolute now is everywhere, always now... not about info propagation or such calculations from different locations which you describe above.

 

Of course, as long as you firmly believe, "Everything is relative" you will not see the "absolute now" as a valid perspective... cuz if everything is relative, then there is no absolute like the timeless, omni-Present Now. I simply reject your assumed premise... so your constant challenges based on "everything is relative" are not even "hearing" what i am saying.... as usual!

I am saying "now" anywhere other than where you are is ALL you are cognizant of

"now". Other places that "now" is in your thinking processes about "out there". You

are NOT present to them as you are NOT there !!! Any other now is irrelevant. Can

you do anything with this fact of "now out there" ??? No!!! So "now out there" is

meaningless. You can reject it all you like. Rejecting it (or anything) does not make

the contrary so.... :confused::naughty:;) :naughty:

 

maddog

[maddog]

Modest,

 

After reading the rest of the posts since I last responded, I now concede your point:

Michael's Universal Now -- is really the same as Newton's concept of an Absolute Time

reference (or implication thereof).

 

Still just as inadequate for explaining physics in the modern world. Fine for Newtonian

Physics (at least for the most part).

 

Still just as irrelevant and meaningless as before -- just that I now see the light! ;)

 

:naughty:

 

maddog :confused:

[modest]

Going back to the special something in any inertial frame. This postulate of special relativity that "physical law portrays itself in the same form in every inertial frame" has some consequence that influences the formation of the opinion of a person, on the nature of reality and time. A common formation of opinion I believe is that the theory of SR makes the claim that, there is only one places time passes the same, and that is within the inertial frame of reference tied to an observer, which of course is only one place. The influence of opinion on the nature of reality is when this claim allows for a person to consider that an inertial frame of reference is the only place for the proper passage of time (this is that special something).

 

What do you mean "one place". One can consider an inertial frame of reference being arbitrarily large. It's not just one place.

Let me use an example that I think brings this query to the ultimate situation. A black hole has laws of physics that are not the same as the laws of physics on mars.

Sure they are. You can use general relativity in either case. You could also use special relativity—an experiment designed to test special relativity should work the same in a free-falling inertial frame inside the event horizon of a black hole as it does in a free-falling inertial frame on mars.

 

~modest

[Michael Mooney]

Arkain 101,

Maybe you missed my "thought experiment" presentation of the universal, ongoing now. Also that time is event duration, which is arbitrary in two ways... the "beginning and end" defining "an event" is up to the observer's focus, 'cuz everything everywhere is constantly in motion, so "start and stop" are up to the observer. And the "time units" are arbitrary.... usually in terms of an earth rev or fractions thereof of an earth orbit and multiples thereof.

 

Now... for anyone who is capable of imaging "the cosmos as a whole" lets call that the "universal frame of reference" tho "frame" implies a boundary or locality rather that "for the universe as a whole."

So, beyond all "local perspectives" "the present" is still, always the present.... everywhere.

Of course one earth rev is still "a day" and an earth orbit is still "a year" and a whole cosmic "Bang/Crunch" cycle... if true... is still... however long it takes. But all that is about "time." With everything still happening as it is, if we are not observing "duration" but considering "zero duration" as perpetually ongoing.... If you get this, you get the absolute universal now. And it doesn't have a damn thing to do with specific locations, durations, velocities or "local frames of reference."

And overall, everything is now happening simultaneously.

See what I mean?

Note to Pyrotex: This is my simple explanation of "simultaneity" if that is the next step in our discussion.

 

 

Michael

[Michael Mooney]

Me:

Now!... is the present. (Period.) There Is no spacial location applicable to the present. The present is the present everywhere

I have also stated repeatedly what "now" is not... not the past or future.

Now is happening as distinct from what has happened or will happen, and it's not about "where."

Watcher:

michael if you mean to say that things are not in time, then i agree. and saying it like this is much easier to explain .

 

It "takes time" for things to happen. It is called event duration, in the way I define an event... always dependent on the observer's window of observation, since motion is everywhere perpetually.

 

But there is no "slice of time" between the not-yet-present future and the not-still-present past. The present is all there is.

The rest is memory/history... not now present, and imagination/anticipation... not still present.

 

I think this is my last repetition of the above.... as I'm tired of saying it, and one either gets it by now or not. And now is not a thing... not something with different locations. Last repetition for that too for same reasons.

 

Michael

[arkain101]

What do you mean "one place". One can consider an inertial frame of reference being arbitrarily large. It's not just one place.

 

Sure they are. You can use general relativity in either case. You could also use special relativity—an experiment designed to test special relativity should work the same in a free-falling inertial frame inside the event horizon of a black hole as it does in a free-falling inertial frame on mars.

 

~modest

 

mmmm. Right. Let me be more elaborate. Typically when discussing reference frame transformations/comparisons, we deal with 2 places (2 clocks, 2 ships, 2 observers) to keep it simple. I was focussing on time as the main aspect of "laws of physics". So that when I say, one place, regardless of how huge, you only need one clock in that frame. I would not want to lead the conversation into complex possibilities of millions of places... would I?

Originally Posted by arkain101 View Post

Let me use an example that I think brings this query to the ultimate situation. A black hole has laws of physics that are not the same as the laws of physics on mars.

 

The same observed physics. Such as a clock on a fast moving ship at 0.9 C. In this "place" a second on a clock is a different kind of second, governed by different physics relative to an outside observer. On this object, the mass, length, shape, time, force, energy, momentum, are all deranged in comparison to what we call usual physics within our own inertial frame. We explain this with a theory to say it is dilation effects. Which I do not argue towards.

 

But, if we wan't to validate Mooneys point, I think we would have to consider the dilation effects are not, effects diferrent the norm, they are rather just another condition of existence. Again, I don't say that this is initially valid, but I say it is a avenue to consider to produce a "as logical as you can" though experiment under Mooney's postulate, that an "all now everywhere" is just as real, as relative measurements.